Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Equestrian Selection Criteria for Paris Olympics 2024, Dismisses Allegations of Bias

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi, July 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shruti Vora challenging the selection criteria established by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) for the Dressage event at the Paris Olympic Games 2024. The court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, upheld the selection criteria as balanced and in compliance with the Fédération Équestre Internationale (FEI) guidelines.

Shruti Vora, a prominent Indian Dressage athlete, filed a writ petition contesting the selection of Anush Agarwalla by EFI to represent India in the Dressage event at the upcoming Paris Olympics. Vora argued that the selection criteria were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfairly favored Agarwalla by relying on outdated performance metrics rather than recent form.

The court emphasized that the selection criteria adhered strictly to the FEI standards, ensuring both fairness and rationality. "The criteria reflect a balanced approach, incorporating both historical performance and current form," stated Justice Narula. The selection was based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events in the past year, which the court found to be a fair measure of an athlete's consistent performance.

Justice Narula reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in interfering with sports federations' selection criteria, citing precedents like Manini Kaushik v. National Rifle Association of India and Sushil Kumar v. Union of India. The court held that judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or perversity, neither of which was evident in this case.

Addressing the importance of consistency, the court found that Agarwalla's selection was based on his consistent high performance over the specified period. The use of historical performance metrics, the court noted, ensures the selection of stable and consistently high-performing athletes.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence and the appropriateness of using both past and recent performance metrics. The court upheld the EFI’s criteria, which mandated that an athlete-horse combination must achieve a minimum eligibility requirement (MER) of 67% in two FEI-listed qualification events between January 1, 2023, and June 24, 2024. In cases where multiple athletes met this requirement, the selection would then be based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events within the qualifying period.

Justice Narula remarked, "The integration of historical performance data ensures that selections are based on sustained excellence rather than transient form, thereby aligning with the principles of fairness and rationality."

The Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair and rational selection processes in sports. By affirming the EFI's adherence to FEI guidelines, the judgment sends a strong message about the reliability and integrity of established selection criteria. This landmark decision is expected to have a significant impact on future sports selections, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing disputes in sports governance.

 

Date of Decision: July 4, 2024

Shruti Vora v. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News